Palestinian National Authority (PA) President, Mahmoud Abbas is finally retiring. Or is he?
At 80-years of age, Abbas says he is leaving the leadership of the Palestine Liberation Organization (PLO) behind, but considering that the man has been threatening to quit many times in the past, notably since 2009, it is not possible to be certain.
On August 27, he called for a two-day emergency session of the Palestine National Council (PNC) to be held in Ramallah in September, following which a large banner ‘appeared’ in Al Manara Square in central Ramallah. [On Monday, the PLO announced that the meeting has been postponed].
The banner, featuring a giant Abbas – depicted head-to-toe — along with late Yasser Arafat, was accompanied by the slogan that translates:
“We will remain with legitimacy against all internal and external conspiracies.”
But if Abbas has reigned over occupied Palestinians, with Israel’s consent for 11 years (while his mandate expired in 2005), what ‘legitimacy’ are Abbas’s friends, who no doubt instigated the banner, referring to?
Indeed, if measured in accordance with minimally required standards of democracy, neither Abbas, nor any of his inner-circle, are legitimate.
Furthermore, what ‘external conspiracies’ are they talking about? Certainly no Israelis or Americans are conspiring against the ageing leader.
Israeli political commentator, Raviv Drucker, wrote an article in Haaretz that reprimanded Israeli Prime Minister, Benjamin Netanyahu, for failing to take full advantage of Abbas:
“Our greatest high-tech geniuses working in the most sophisticated laboratories could not invent a more comfortable Palestinian partner. A leader with no one to the left of him in the Palestinian political arena and one who, when his enemy, Israel, bombs his people in Gaza, comes out with a statement criticizing those who kidnap Israeli soldiers.”
Thus, as expected, Abbas’s popularity is on a constant decline. His ratings have fallen dramatically from a particularly unpopular 22 percent last March to 16 percent on September 1st. This was partly because Palestinians realise that the man has little to offer in terms of national unity, or a roadmap out of their misery. Despite his position, they still subsist under Israeli military occupation while bearing endless economic woes.
Some, including Fatah leader, Qaddura Faris, insist that Abbas ‘is fed up’ – whatever that means – and that he is now reaching the end of his career. Abbas claiming to be ‘fed up’ is a phrase that had repeatedly been used in the past whenever he threatened to quit.
Abbas is allegedly concerned about his legacy and the fate of the PLO and the PA after his ‘reign’. Whatever political manoeuvring he has planned for the future (including the selection of new Executive Committee members, which will be overseen by him and his allies) is hardly encouraging. According to the Unity deal signed between Abbas’ faction, Fatah, and Hamas, the restructuring of the PLO as a prerequisite to include both Hamas and Islamic Jihad in a unifying and relatively representative Palestinian body, was a top priority.
Not anymore, though. Hamas is furious with Abbas’ call for reconvening the PNC. The Gaza-headquartered movement is calling on Palestinian factions not to participate in this session. Whatever decisions prevail, further Palestinian disunity is assured.
Hamas, albeit laden with its own mistakes, is justifiably angry by Abbas’s politicking at the expense of an entire nation. Moreover, Abbas has shown little compassion for Gaza. He has neither demonstrated any respect for the Palestinian people nor has he invested sincere efforts aimed at making Palestinian unity his top priority. It is rather telling that he is activating the PNC, summoning its nearly 700 members, not to discuss the intensifying Palestinian crises — from Gaza to Jerusalem to Yarmouk in Syria — but rather to concoct another cozy arrangement for him and his cronies.
Yet, this crisis of leadership precedes Abbas.
The PNC’s first meeting was held in Jerusalem in 1964. Since then and for years, despite the Parliament’s many flaws, it serves an important mission. It was a platform for Palestinian political dialogue and, over the years, has helped define Palestinian national identity and priorities. But gradually, beginning with Arafat’s elections as the head of the PLO in February 1969, the PNC ceased being a Parliament, and became, more or less, a political rubber stamp that validated all decisions made by Arafat’s PLO, specifically, his Fatah faction.
This has been highlighted repeatedly throughout history with several prominent examples:
On November 12, 1988 the PNC convened in Algiers to approve EEA political strategy based on UN Resolutions 242 and 338 which pertain to the habitual US condition for engaging the PLO. At the end of deliberation and, based on that approval, Arafat announced an independent Palestinian State to be established in the Occupied Territories, with East Jerusalem as its capital.
Despite this, the US still argued that the PNC statement did not qualify for an ‘unconditional’ acceptance of Resolution 242, hence pressing Arafat for more concessions. Arafat flew to Geneva and addressed the UN General Assembly on December 13, 1988, since the US refused to grant him an entry visa to speak at the UN headquarters in New York. He laboured to be even more specific.
However, the US maintained its position, compelling Arafat, on the next day, to reiterate the same previous statements, this time, explicitly renouncing “all forms of terrorism, including individual, group or state terrorism.”
This was not the only time the PNC and its respected members were dragged into the political gambles of Palestinian leaders. In 1991, they voted in favour of direct negotiations in Madrid between Palestinians and Israel, only to be hoodwinked by Arafat, who negotiated a secret agreement in Oslo that paid little heed to Palestinian consensus. The PNC was once more summoned to Gaza in 1996 to omit parts of the Palestinian Charter deemed unacceptable by Netanyahu and the then US President, Bill Clinton. As PNC members voted, Clinton, present at the meeting, nodded in agreement.
Arafat’s misuse of democracy and manipulation of the PNC is no longer representative of or, with its current factional makeup is, frankly, irrelevant. Yet, Abbas’ game is even more dangerous.
Arafat used the Council to ratify or push his own agenda, which he mistakenly deemed suitable for Palestinian interests. Abbas’ agenda, however, is entirely personal, entirely elitist and entirely corrupt. Worse still, it comes at a time when Palestinian unity is not simply a matter of smart strategy, but is critical in the face of the conceivable collapse of the entire Palestinian national project.
There is no doubt that the moment when Abbas exits the scene has arrived. That could become a transition into yet another sorry legacy of an undemocratic Palestinian leadership. Or it could serve as an opportunity for Palestinians, fed up with the endemic corruption, political tribalism and across-the-board failure, to step forward and challenge the moral collapse of the Palestinian National Authority and the charade of self-serving ‘democracy’ of factions and individuals.
Dr Ramzy Baroud has been writing about the Middle East for over 20 years. He is an internationally-syndicated columnist, a media consultant, an author of several books and the founder of PalestineChronicle.com. His latest book is My Father Was a Freedom Fighter: Gaza’s Untold Story (Pluto Press, London). His website is: www.ramzybaroud.net.
